Cubism Vol 61: Your Votes Counted

Share.

How You Said You Would Run Nintendo

By Stephen Totilo

The following editorial, part of the Cubism series, is written by IGN freelancer Stephen Totilo.

The thoughts expressed within are the sole opinion of Stephen, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IGNcube editors. The purpose of this article series is to let talented fans speak their minds on various topics about their favorite consoles. We hope you enjoy it. Any feedback you have can be sent to insider_mail@ign.com.

Cubism is back, people! This column closed 2003 with a poll that put you, the reader, in hypothetical control of the gaming giant Nintendo. Fourteen questions were posed, and more than 100 of you answered. This was no simple poll that you could click through in 10 seconds, and so I want to thank all of you who took the time to write out your answers. Over the next two Cubisms you'll see how everyone voted, you'll read about some really interesting ideas that bubbled to the surface amid the froth of responses and you'll get evidence about why a couple of you should never, ever be put anywhere near the controls of the good ship Nintendo.

Obligatory Nintendo DS remarks: Not one of you suggested that a Nintendo under your control would introduce a new two-screened portable system. For shame. I'm not sure what to make of this week's huge two-screened announcement. Is Nintendo stretching its own resources too thin, creating another 64DD-like development time-waster? Does Nintendo's DS business model require significant third party support, and if so, does the company realize that even massive companies like EA might be too preoccupied developing for existing machines, next-generation consoles and the PSP to devote significant effort to the DS? Or if Nintendo thinks this device can survive on mostly homegrown Nintendo-made software -- a la the Game Boy and the N64 -- then will the DS become just another niche machine?

A reader mock...up.

And what of the screen configuration? Are the news reports accurate that the screens are on top of each other? What does that mean? Are they on a hinge that allows differently angled positions? If so, is the actual idea behind the two screens some sort of half-opened-book design that creates a pseudo wraparound effect, which actually would be a revolutionary way to depict a video game? Or maybe the screens are back-to-back for some reason? And what of those examples Nintendo touted as possible DS game features? Are we supposed to really think that a game would require two screens powered by two separate processors just to get a menu, map or items list depicted on a separate screen? Doesn't two processors warrant an approach somewhat more ambitious than that? Many, many questions. But, hey, it could be worse. At least the DS could be really cool.)